Broncos RB Dayne, FB Sapp Running With First Team (1 Viewer)

[datonn]

From the Footballguys.com News Blogger:

During the Denver Broncos recent mini-camp activities, running back Ron Dayne and fullback Cecil Sapp were working with the first unit. "Cecil is a worker," head coach Mike Shanahan said. "He is a guy that I feel is talented enough to be the starting fullback or tailback -- he is that type of athlete."

Source: http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=5733

 

[Bri]

From the Footballguys.com News Blogger:

During the Denver Broncos recent mini-camp activities, running back Ron Dayne and fullback Cecil Sapp were working with the first unit. "Cecil is a worker," head coach Mike Shanahan said. "He is a guy that I feel is talented enough to be the starting fullback or tailback -- he is that type of athlete."

Source: http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=5733

Interesting quote following that mentioning Sapp as tailback too, esp after former RB/FB Mike Anderson led them last year.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

Rueben Droughns former FB as well. Sapp seems to have shaken the injury bug that plagued his career at CSU. The RB corps is deep in Denver, but Sapp has proven that he'll do whatever it takes to make the team. On a side note, Rod Smith still calls me Cecil Sapp everytime I talk to him.

 

[datonn]

That quote about Sapp really jumped off the screen at me too......although I've come to pretty-much not trust anything Mike Shanahan says related to running backs.....since if Shanny drafted a pet rock in the middle rounds of the college draft, he'd probably go from practice squad RB, to 1,500 yard rusher, to #3 on the depth chart, to traded all in the span of about six minutes.

Has their been a harder running game to forecast since Portis was traded (from a fantasy football perspective) than the RB corps of Denver?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

......although I've come to pretty-much not trust anything Mike Shanahan says related to running backs.....

This has come up in other threads, but people haven't identified an example of any misleading statements by Shanahan. When he said Mike Anderson was going to start last year, Mike Anderson started. And so on back through previous years (although injuries have caused changes in plans). It's not that Shanahan's statements were false . . . it's that people ignored them.

 

[Donnybrook]

MOVING UP?: As the Broncos opened practice on Thursday, fullback/tailback Cecil Sapp was running with the first team offense as the lead blocker for Ron Dayne.

"Cecil is a worker," Coach Shanahan said of the CSU alum. "He is a guy that I feel is talented enough to be the starting fullback or tailback -- he is that type of athlete."

    -- Kyle Sonneman

Unfortunately, my league awards no points for blocking. But thanks for posting this because now I will have to endure all the Dayne that will surely follow.

 

[{Syrus}]

On a side note, Rod Smith still calls me Cecil Sapp everytime I talk to him. 

And you laugh at that? I'd punch him for disrespecting me and not even knowing my name. You don't call him Rod Stewart, do you?

 

[{Syrus}]

......although I've come to pretty-much not trust anything Mike Shanahan says related to running backs.....

This has come up in other threads, but people haven't identified an example of any misleading statements by Shanahan. When he said Mike Anderson was going to start last year, Mike Anderson started. And so on back through previous years (although injuries have caused changes in plans). It's not that Shanahan's statements were false . . . it's that people ignored them.

This isn't rocket science, so don't make it into a quantitaive analysis lecture. Mike Shanahan is very undecided what he wants to do at RB until the last minute of training camp or injury forces his hand. That is what most people allude to when they say Shanahan is unpredictable concerning his RB corp.

 

[cantstop1999]

its been the same thing year after year denvers coach plays games with evryone, you never know who the starter will be before the season.i will never draft a denver back im all set.

 

[Bri]

its been the same thing year after year denvers coach plays games with evryone, you never know who the starter will be before the season.i will never draft a denver back im all set.

He does seem to have "camp battles" at RB more often than any other coach. I think the prob is people running away with a "he had a good day" quote to equal someone being a starter.

 

[Bri]

How'd Dayne do? Nothing in that article. Is he struggling with the first team? Doing well?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

So Dayne is the starter and SAPP is the handcuff this year. You've been officially put on notice.

 

[Boone22]

So Dayne is the starter and SAPP is the handcuff this year. You've been officially put on notice.

Not so fast!!!!!From the Blogger...

July 7, 2006, 07:15

Broncos :: RB

RB C.Cobbs In The Mix For Starting Job

Adrian Dater, Denver Post - [Full Article]

RB Cedric Cobbs is a running back looking to fulfill untapped potential. Cobbs is hoping to become the latest in a long succession of electrifying runners who found success playing in HC Mike Shanahan's system. Drafted in the fourth round by New England in 2004, Cobbs rushed 22 times for 50 yards in the Patriots' Super Bowl season, missing much of the season with a knee injury. He got hurt again in the 2005 preseason, and was released soon after, then he signed with the Broncos. "We felt very fortunate to get him on our football team. Now, he's competing for the starting jobs, Shanahan said."

 

[trader jake]

On a side note, Rod Smith still calls me Cecil Sapp everytime I talk to him.

And you laugh at that? I'd punch him for disrespecting me and not even knowing my name. You don't call him Rod Stewart, do you?

 

[radballs]

......although I've come to pretty-much not trust anything Mike Shanahan says related to running backs.....

This has come up in other threads, but people haven't identified an example of any misleading statements by Shanahan. When he said Mike Anderson was going to start last year, Mike Anderson started. And so on back through previous years (although injuries have caused changes in plans). It's not that Shanahan's statements were false . . . it's that people ignored them.

This isn't rocket science, so don't make it into a quantitaive analysis lecture. Mike Shanahan is very undecided what he wants to do at RB until the last minute of training camp or injury forces his hand. That is what most people allude to when they say Shanahan is unpredictable concerning his RB corp.

Well, I'm pretty sure he said that Mike Anderson would be the starter very early in training camp, but most people thought it was just a motivating ploy to get Bell to work harder. Shanahan's in season injury reports are more frustrating than who he deems to have the early lead in the starting RB position.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

So Dayne is the starter and SAPP is the handcuff this year. You've been officially put on notice.

Not so fast!!!!!From the Blogger...

July 7, 2006, 07:15

Broncos :: RB

RB C.Cobbs In The Mix For Starting Job

Adrian Dater, Denver Post - [Full Article]

RB Cedric Cobbs is a running back looking to fulfill untapped potential. Cobbs is hoping to become the latest in a long succession of electrifying runners who found success playing in HC Mike Shanahan's system. Drafted in the fourth round by New England in 2004, Cobbs rushed 22 times for 50 yards in the Patriots' Super Bowl season, missing much of the season with a knee injury. He got hurt again in the 2005 preseason, and was released soon after, then he signed with the Broncos. "We felt very fortunate to get him on our football team. Now, he's competing for the starting jobs, Shanahan said."

Starting jobs?

 

[MLBrandow]

So Dayne is the starter and SAPP is the handcuff this year.  You've been officially put on notice.

Not so fast!!!!!From the Blogger...

July 7, 2006, 07:15

Broncos :: RB

RB C.Cobbs In The Mix For Starting Job

Adrian Dater, Denver Post - [Full Article]

RB Cedric Cobbs is a running back looking to fulfill untapped potential. Cobbs is hoping to become the latest in a long succession of electrifying runners who found success playing in HC Mike Shanahan's system. Drafted in the fourth round by New England in 2004, Cobbs rushed 22 times for 50 yards in the Patriots' Super Bowl season, missing much of the season with a knee injury. He got hurt again in the 2005 preseason, and was released soon after, then he signed with the Broncos. "We felt very fortunate to get him on our football team. Now, he's competing for the starting jobs, Shanahan said."

I was shocked when the Pats released him. He'll be a monster in Denver's offense.... big news for Dayne owners, dream come true for any dynasty Cobbs owners.I'd follow this pretty closely throughout camp. While Bell won't push Dayne for more than a 3DB, Cobbs could take him over.

 

[Kit Fisto]

its been the same thing year after year denvers coach plays games with evryone, you never know who the starter will be before the season.i will never draft a denver back im all set.

I will never spend a high pick on a Denver RB again.

 

[JimmyD]

its been the same thing year after year denvers coach plays games with evryone,  you never know who the starter will be before the season.i will never draft a denver back im all set.

I will never spend a high pick on a Denver RB again.

I've not had a Denver RB for a long time, since TD. But I can tell you its very frustrating to watch RB's drafted in middle rounds outperform your studs.So I'm been thinking about trying something like this: (If I get the 11/12th slot in a redraft)

RB1 - Rudi Johnson or other RB (1.12)

RB2 - Denver RB (Bell at 4.01 and Dayne at 5.12 "based off of current ADP")

WR1 - Owens (2.01)

WR2 - Burress/Roy Williams (3.12)

RB3 - Curtis Martin/A. Green (6.01)

That would be a pretty good starting line up I think with a safety net of a decent starting RB as my RB3.

That being said I don't like the handcuffing technique because I have to sit there and wonder if someone is going to pull the handcuff in front of me. If that happens you go from a guaranteed Denver RB to shakey at best situation.

 

[Routilla]

Get Cobbs before others find out about the sleeper of the year.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=roto...owire&type=lgns

 

[zamboni]

Shanahan's in season injury reports are more frustrating than who he deems to have the early lead in the starting RB position.

Bingo. Generally, it's the in-season uncertainty of how the carries will be divided, as opposed to who the lead sled dog is, that sometimes makes it frustrating.

 

[datonn]

......although I've come to pretty-much not trust anything Mike Shanahan says related to running backs.....

This has come up in other threads, but people haven't identified an example of any misleading statements by Shanahan. When he said Mike Anderson was going to start last year, Mike Anderson started. And so on back through previous years (although injuries have caused changes in plans). It's not that Shanahan's statements were false . . . it's that people ignored them.

Maurile,I guess for me it isn't that Shanahan isn't telling the truth....as much as he changes his mind so gosh-darned much......and/or doesn't really have a pecking-order for what role everyone in his RB corps will play. One week, Dayne could be starting. The next week, Tatum Bell gets 65% of the carries. The week after that, Sapp has a phenomenal practice and sees 10-12 carries on game day. When I say I don't "trust" what Shanahan says, it simply comes out of a frustration over never knowing what the Broncos running game will look like over an entire season or multiple seasons (injuries aside). Drama and intrigue has surrounded that position since Portis left, and anyone other than maybe Cecil around here couldn't tell you on Week 1 what Shanahan will do come Week 3-4 of the season.....injuries aside.Do you acquire Dayne, Bell, Sapp and (what the heck) Cobbs and burn four roster spots on one starter? Do you let other guys gamble on Dayne/Bell and gamble on the vulture move of Sapp/Cobbs much later in the draft? Do you avoid the entire Denver RB situation altogether due to all the uncertainty?I guess if it were me, I might roll with Sapp or Cobbs late and let the Dayne/Bell owners tear their hair out by Week 5-6.....as spot-starting duty and/or trade bait is all I feel I can count on from the Denver running game since Portis left.....unless you want to handcuff the handcuff of the handcuff of the handcuff......

 

[BoltBacker]

Shanahan's in season injury reports are more frustrating than who he deems to have the early lead in the starting RB position.

Bingo. Generally, it's the in-season uncertainty of how the carries will be divided, as opposed to who the lead sled dog is, that sometimes makes it frustrating.

I felt the whole "Shanny's a LIAR!" thing started back when T.Davis was attempting to come back from his injuries. You'd hear Shanny say Davis was looking great, blah, blah, blah and then the next thing you knew Davis would be back on the shelf. Maybe the health of Davis did change that quickly but many just think he was blowing smoke.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

......although I've come to pretty-much not trust anything Mike Shanahan says related to running backs.....

This has come up in other threads, but people haven't identified an example of any misleading statements by Shanahan. When he said Mike Anderson was going to start last year, Mike Anderson started. And so on back through previous years (although injuries have caused changes in plans). It's not that Shanahan's statements were false . . . it's that people ignored them.

Maurile,I guess for me it isn't that Shanahan isn't telling the truth....as much as he changes his mind so gosh-darned much......and/or doesn't really have a pecking-order for what role everyone in his RB corps will play. One week, Dayne could be starting. The next week, Tatum Bell gets 65% of the carries. The week after that, Sapp has a phenomenal practice and sees 10-12 carries on game day. When I say I don't "trust" what Shanahan says, it simply comes out of a frustration over never knowing what the Broncos running game will look like over an entire season or multiple seasons (injuries aside). Drama and intrigue has surrounded that position since Portis left, and anyone other than maybe Cecil around here couldn't tell you on Week 1 what Shanahan will do come Week 3-4 of the season.....injuries aside.

Historically this would be a complete about face from how Shanahan works.In Denver, when a RB seperates himself from the pack, he is THE MAN. He will get up to and over 30 carries in many games for as long as he can take it.The RB situation in 2002 was a little unsettled. They ran some RBBC and eventually Clinton Portis seperated himself. Did you ever doubt that a healthy Clinton Portis wouldn't get a good workload after he won the job?Since then, after Droughns and Anderson seperated themselves did you feel Shanahan was going to play games and bench one of them on a whim?There will be no need to acquire all four Denver RBs if the starting situation is settled by the time you draft.If the situation ISN'T settled, then it's no different than any other team that doesn't have a clear starter. There's nothing special about an unclear Denver situation compared to an unclear Jacksonville situation.

 

[Football Jones]

Sapp is an underrated runner. I'm sure most of you know he was a good tailback in college. If Dayne were to go down or proves to be unproductive, Sapp could get the call before Cobbs. That's assuming they would keep Bell as the change-of-pace, which it sure seems like that's all he's destined to be (at least under Shanny).

 

[zamboni]

That's assuming they would keep Bell as the change-of-pace, which it sure seems like that's all he's destined to be (at least under Shanny).

I'm thinking the same thing - it looks increasingly likely that Bell will be a 12-15 carry change-of-pace guy regardless of whether Dayne, Sapp or Cobbs does the heavy lifting.

 

[datonn]

Historically this would be a complete about face from how Shanahan works.In Denver, when a RB seperates himself from the pack, he is THE MAN. He will get up to and over 30 carries in many games for as long as he can take it.The RB situation in 2002 was a little unsettled. They ran some RBBC and eventually Clinton Portis seperated himself. Did you ever doubt that a healthy Clinton Portis wouldn't get a good workload after he won the job?Since then, after Droughns and Anderson seperated themselves did you feel Shanahan was going to play games and bench one of them on a whim?There will be no need to acquire all four Denver RBs if the starting situation is settled by the time you draft.If the situation ISN'T settled, then it's no different than any other team that doesn't have a clear starter. There's nothing special about an unclear Denver situation compared to an unclear Jacksonville situation.

I know, KRS, but Clinton Portis and Terrell Davis seem to be an apples and oranges comparison compared to Quentin Griffin, Mike Anderson, Reuben Droughns, Ron Dayne, Tatum Bell, Cecil Sapp and Cedric Cobbs. Granted, Anderson did emerge to have some EXCELLENT performances....but I almost wonder if part of the problem is whether Shanahan's latest "projects" can only hit doubles....compared to the "home runs" that Davis and Portis were able to bring to the table. Lots of "doubles" are good, but Shanahan still hasn't found that next home-run hitter. (?)It is excellent from a FOOTBALL standpoint, as every RB on that roster is very motivated and knows that if they work hard enough and do the best they possibly can in that system, they'll likely have a shot at some point down the road! From a FANTASY FOOTBALL perspective though, it has been :X since Portis left town...not from the perspective of weekly production, but knowing you are drafting a guy who can carry the RB2 load for your team(s) on a week-in, week-out basis.My $0.02.

 

[Joe T]

......although I've come to pretty-much not trust anything Mike Shanahan says related to running backs.....

This has come up in other threads, but people haven't identified an example of any misleading statements by Shanahan. When he said Mike Anderson was going to start last year, Mike Anderson started. And so on back through previous years (although injuries have caused changes in plans). It's not that Shanahan's statements were false . . . it's that people ignored them.

So what is the cause of the confusion every year in drafting the starting Denver Running back? Clearly if we "knew" who that would be every year the Denver RB would be a 1st round pick, yet usually is not.A. Shark Pool hyping a player as the next great Denver RB?

B. Shanahan giving conflicting statements throughout the preseason?

C. Injuries, other unknowns?

Go back through the last 10 years. How many times has the guy going into the season as the Denver #1 RB finished the season as the #1 RB?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Go back through the last 10 years. How many times has the guy going into the season as the Denver #1 RB finished the season as the #1 RB?

2005: Mike Anderson started #1 and finished #1.2004: Quentin Griffin started #1 but was injured. Droughns finished #1.

2003: Clinton Portis started #1 and finished #1.

2002: Olandis Gary started #1 but was injured. Clinton Portis finished #1.

2001: Terrell Davis started #1 but was injured. (He still finished #1.)

2000: Terrell Davis started #1 but was injured. Mike Anderson finished #1.

1999: Terrell Davis started #1 but was injured. Olandis Gary finished #1.

1998: Terrell Davis started #1 and finished #1.

1997: Terrell Davis started #1 and finished #1.

1996: Terrell Davis started #1 and finished #1.

If you are projecting an injury to the current starter because Terrell Davis used to get injured a lot, that's one thing. But if you are projecting that the current starter will lose his job for a non-injury-related reason just because Shanahan likes to keep people off balance, I don't see any historical evidence for that.

 

[Joe T]

Go back through the last 10 years.  How many times has the guy going into the season as the Denver #1 RB finished the season as the #1 RB?

2005: Mike Anderson started #1 and finished #1.2004: Quentin Griffin started #1 but was injured. Droughns finished #1.

2003: Clinton Portis started #1 and finished #1.

2002: Olandis Gary started #1 but was injured. Clinton Portis finished #1.

2001: Terrell Davis started #1 but was injured. (He still finished #1.)

2000: Terrell Davis started #1 but was injured. Mike Anderson finished #1.

1999: Terrell Davis started #1 but was injured. Olandis Gary finished #1.

1998: Terrell Davis started #1 and finished #1.

1997: Terrell Davis started #1 and finished #1.

1996: Terrell Davis started #1 and finished #1.

If you are projecting an injury to the current starter because Terrell Davis used to get injured a lot, that's one thing. But if you are projecting that the current starter will lose his job for a non-injury-related reason just because Shanahan likes to keep people off balance, I don't see any historical evidence for that.

nip

So what is the cause of the confusion every year in drafting the starting Denver Running back?

 

[BoltBacker]

Go back through the last 10 years. How many times has the guy going into the season as the Denver #1 RB finished the season as the #1 RB?

2004: Quentin Griffin started #1 but was injured. Droughns finished #1.If you are projecting an injury to the current starter because Terrell Davis used to get injured a lot, that's one thing. But if you are projecting that the current starter will lose his job for a non-injury-related reason just because Shanahan likes to keep people off balance, I don't see any historical evidence for that.

You don't think Griffin was healthy at the end of the season?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what is the cause of the confusion every year in drafting the starting Denver Running back?

There isn't always confusion. When Portis and T.Davis were healthy, there was no confusion at all. They were studs.When Davis was going through his injured-every-year phase, his injuries were the cause of the confusion.

In the other years, like 2004 and 2005, the confusion was caused by the fact that Denver didn't have any established studs on the roster. When a team has no established studs, people will always have different guesses about which guys may or may not emerge. But I think the guessing has occurred in spite of Shanahan's statements, not because of them. Shanahan has generally picked a guy and gone with him -- until injury.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Go back through the last 10 years. How many times has the guy going into the season as the Denver #1 RB finished the season as the #1 RB?

2004: Quentin Griffin started #1 but was injured. Droughns finished #1.If you are projecting an injury to the current starter because Terrell Davis used to get injured a lot, that's one thing. But if you are projecting that the current starter will lose his job for a non-injury-related reason just because Shanahan likes to keep people off balance, I don't see any historical evidence for that.

You don't think Griffin was healthy at the end of the season?

I don't know, but by that point it didn't matter. Droughns was clearly better.

 

[BoltBacker]

Go back through the last 10 years. How many times has the guy going into the season as the Denver #1 RB finished the season as the #1 RB?

2004: Quentin Griffin started #1 but was injured. Droughns finished #1.If you are projecting an injury to the current starter because Terrell Davis used to get injured a lot, that's one thing. But if you are projecting that the current starter will lose his job for a non-injury-related reason just because Shanahan likes to keep people off balance, I don't see any historical evidence for that.

You don't think Griffin was healthy at the end of the season?

I don't know, but by that point it didn't matter. Droughns was clearly better.

Isn't that a non-injury-related reason?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Go back through the last 10 years. How many times has the guy going into the season as the Denver #1 RB finished the season as the #1 RB?

2004: Quentin Griffin started #1 but was injured. Droughns finished #1.If you are projecting an injury to the current starter because Terrell Davis used to get injured a lot, that's one thing. But if you are projecting that the current starter will lose his job for a non-injury-related reason just because Shanahan likes to keep people off balance, I don't see any historical evidence for that.

You don't think Griffin was healthy at the end of the season?

I don't know, but by that point it didn't matter. Droughns was clearly better.

Isn't that a non-injury-related reason?

Griffin started until he was injured. We can speculate about whether he would have lost his job anyway. But I know of no instances where a Bronco RB lost his starting job for a non-injury-related reason.Droughns probably would have never gotten any carries if it weren't for injuries to several players ahead of him.

 

[joffer]

Griffin started until he was injured. We can speculate about whether he would have lost his job anyway. But I know of no instances where a Bronco RB lost his starting job for a non-injury-related reason.

Droughns probably would have never gotten any carries if it weren't for injuries to several players ahead of him.

Q was losing his job and would have lost his job even if he hadn't gotten injured.

 

[FBGPoker]

I was in denial about Shanahan being honest about his starting RB, but reading all the data provided by others has made me realize that he has been pretty much straighforward about the situation.

Skeletors weasily reputation seems to be unfounded.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Griffin started until he was injured. We can speculate about whether he would have lost his job anyway. But I know of no instances where a Bronco RB lost his starting job for a non-injury-related reason.

Droughns probably would have never gotten any carries if it weren't for injuries to several players ahead of him.

Q was losing his job and would have lost his job even if he hadn't gotten injured.

Probably. But it wouldn't have been because Shanahan was a liar. It would have been because Griffin wasn't getting the job done.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Griffin started until he was injured. We can speculate about whether he would have lost his job anyway. But I know of no instances where a Bronco RB lost his starting job for a non-injury-related reason.

Droughns probably would have never gotten any carries if it weren't for injuries to several players ahead of him.

Q was losing his job and would have lost his job even if he hadn't gotten injured.

Probably. But it wouldn't have been because Shanahan was a liar. It would have been because Griffin wasn't getting the job done.

This is relevant though.The people who are high on Dayne right now are banking on him being honest and being correct that the guy he thinks is the man in May is actually going to be the guy in October and beyond.

Whether he has been honest or not, he has been wrong two of the last three times it's been unclear:

2005: Mike Anderson started #1 and finished #1. He was honest and correct

2004: Quentin Griffin started #1 but was injured. Droughns finished #1. He was honest, but incorrect

2003: Clinton Portis started #1 and finished #1. He had no decision to make.

2002: Olandis Gary started #1 but was injured. Clinton Portis finished #1. He was honest, but incorrect

So, it's perfectly reasonable IMO to believe that Shanahan is being honest and simultaneously believe that Dayne isn't worth squat. Honest or not, Shanahan has proven very fallible. That's not a knock on him, by the way. All coaches are similarly fallible.

To summarize:

Denver's #1 RB in October = stud <------ true statement

Denver's #1 RB in June = stud <---------- not a true statement

 

[datonn]

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The people who are high on Dayne right now are banking on him being honest and being correct that the guy he thinks is the man in May is actually going to be the guy in October and beyond.

I'm not refuting the "he sometimes gets stuff wrong" argument. I'm refuting the much more popular "he's deceitful" argument. That's what I figured datonn meant when he said he wouldn't trust anything Shanahan says -- that it's because Shanahan is often deceitful.

 

[SSOG]

From the Footballguys.com News Blogger:

During the Denver Broncos recent mini-camp activities, running back Ron Dayne and fullback Cecil Sapp were working with the first unit. "Cecil is a worker," head coach Mike Shanahan said. "He is a guy that I feel is talented enough to be the starting fullback or tailback -- he is that type of athlete."

Source: http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=5733

Interesting to see Sapp running with the 1st team. Everything I heard from the team indicated that they LOVED Kyle Johnson. Does anyone know what happened to bump Sapp ahead, or was it just a case of giving Sapp some 1st-team reps to get him some good practice?

This isn't rocket science, so don't make it into a quantitaive analysis lecture. Mike Shanahan is very undecided what he wants to do at RB until the last minute of training camp or injury forces his hand. That is what most people allude to when they say Shanahan is unpredictable concerning his RB corp.

Only in 2002 and 2004 was Shanahan undecided about his RB until the last minute of training camp. Up until 2002, he decided every season that the job was Terrell Davis's for as long as he was healthy. In 2003, the job was Portis's. In 2005, he indicated that the job was Anderson's way back in April. In 2002 and 2004, there was a more open competition for the job. In 2006, he has indicated that Dayne will be doing the heavy lifting.

Well, I'm pretty sure he said that Mike Anderson would be the starter very early in training camp, but most people thought it was just a motivating ploy to get Bell to work harder. Shanahan's in season injury reports are more frustrating than who he deems to have the early lead in the starting RB position.

Correction: Shanahan's in-season injury reports *IN 2001* were frustrating. I've had no trouble with Shanahan's injury reports since then. Week 2 from last season was a perfect example. Shanny said that Anderson would start, but be limited. Anderson started, but was limited to 15 carries.

I know, KRS, but Clinton Portis and Terrell Davis seem to be an apples and oranges comparison compared to Quentin Griffin, Mike Anderson, Reuben Droughns, Ron Dayne, Tatum Bell, Cecil Sapp and Cedric Cobbs. Granted, Anderson did emerge to have some EXCELLENT performances....but I almost wonder if part of the problem is whether Shanahan's latest "projects" can only hit doubles....compared to the "home runs" that Davis and Portis were able to bring to the table. Lots of "doubles" are good, but Shanahan still hasn't found that next home-run hitter. (?)

Davis was a "home run hitter"? He was slow, and he only broke 5 yards per carry once in his career. Davis was a stud because he was so consistant- you knew when he got the ball that he wasn't going to lose yardage. He didn't mix a couple of big runs (aka "home runs") with a bunch of short runs, he consistantly gained good chunks of yardage with each run. That sounds like a guy who hits a lot of Doubles, to me. Actually, of all the Denver RBs, Davis compares best to Mike Anderson (with Olandis Gary coming in second).I like to say that an RB that averaged 3.4 yards per carry would be the single greatest RB in the history of the NFL... if he just got exactly 3.4 yards every time he touched the ball.

So what is the cause of the confusion every year in drafting the starting Denver Running back? Clearly if we "knew" who that would be every year the Denver RB would be a 1st round pick, yet usually is not.

A. Shark Pool hyping a player as the next great Denver RB?

B. Shanahan giving conflicting statements throughout the preseason?

C. Injuries, other unknowns?

Go back through the last 10 years. How many times has the guy going into the season as the Denver #1 RB finished the season as the #1 RB?

The majority of the cause comes from a lot of the sportswriters in Denver not really knowing that much about sports. Or Denver, for that matter. Aside from Legwold and probably Bill Williamson, Denver sportswriters are nothing more than gossip and opinion columnists. I remember a column a couple months ago about how the smartest move Denver could make would be to trade Jake Plummer for Brett Favre (who still hadn't announced whether he was retiring or not). Anyway, the opinion columnists make stuff up and say things like "Oh, Bell will be a stud!" or "Oh, Shanahan's trying to motivate Bell!". Then, when it's clear that the wheels have fallen off the Bell bandwagon, they hop on the Anderson bandwagon. "Oh, Anderson is perfect for this offense! Oh, Anderson is just what Denver needs!"Another big problem is that people spend too much time speculating and not enough time listening to Shanahan. People SPECULATED that Bell would be the #1 last year, just because they liked his ypc. You can like Bell's ypc all you want, but that won't change how Shanahan is going to use him.

Griffin started until he was injured. We can speculate about whether he would have lost his job anyway. But I know of no instances where a Bronco RB lost his starting job for a non-injury-related reason.

Droughns probably would have never gotten any carries if it weren't for injuries to several players ahead of him.

Griffin had already lost the starting job before he got injured. He got injured on a special teams play. Starting RBs in Denver don't play special teams. Don't believe me? Look at how many kick returns Droughns had prior to week 4, and look at how many kick returns he had AFTER week 4.

 

[Chaos Commish]

So, it's perfectly reasonable IMO to believe that Shanahan is being honest and simultaneously believe that Dayne isn't worth squat. Honest or not, Shanahan has proven very fallible. That's not a knock on him, by the way. All coaches are similarly fallible.

To summarize:

Denver's #1 RB in October = stud <------ true statement

Denver's #1 RB in June = stud <---------- not a true statement

Great post. I love the strong correction of the Shanny bashers in this thread. Shanahan has been both forthcoming and forthright about his RBs, and if you paid close attention, put your own preferences aside, it's paid off richly for FF. The problem is too many fantasy team owners think they coach the Broncos then go loco when the guy they pick to start doesn't.To the quote above, caveats.

Denver's #1 RB in October = stud <------ true statement

Denver's #1 RB in June = stud <---------- probably a true statement too

One diminutive June starter with an injured ankle has come up short from a performance standard. Much could be written about each case, but in the end, if you think RB 1 in June is worth squat, you better be hoping for that injury. That's what seems to be required. Shanny is loyal to his chosen one, almost to a fault with Q before the injury.

So, I don't find it perfectly reasonable to believe RB1 in June is worth squat. Not at all. I guess the entire staff disagrees and like RB2 better though. Everyone predicting Dayne to be injured? Everyone in a little denial still? Not sure. Denial seems reasonable. He is still Ron Freakin' Dayne.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Griffin had already lost the starting job before he got injured. He got injured on a special teams play.

He injured his ankle before he blew out his knee. The ankle injury opened the door for Droughns, who charged through it and didn't look back. But it was still an injury that cost Q the starting gig. The writing seemed to be on the wall, but we cannot say for certain.

 

[datonn]

Davis was a "home run hitter"? He was slow, and he only broke 5 yards per carry once in his career. Davis was a stud because he was so consistant- you knew when he got the ball that he wasn't going to lose yardage. He didn't mix a couple of big runs (aka "home runs") with a bunch of short runs, he consistantly gained good chunks of yardage with each run. That sounds like a guy who hits a lot of Doubles, to me. Actually, of all the Denver RBs, Davis compares best to Mike Anderson (with Olandis Gary coming in second).I like to say that an RB that averaged 3.4 yards per carry would be the single greatest RB in the history of the NFL... if he just got exactly 3.4 yards every time he touched the ball.

I wasn't talking about breaking off long TD runs, SSOG. I was referring to guys who were bona fide studs.....GREAT players, rather than "good" players. Davis and Portis were/are "great", in my book. Anderson, Droughns are/were "good", while the jury is still out on Griffin, Dayne, Bell, Sapp, Cobbs, et al. Hope that helps to clarify my opinion on the subject.

 

[SSOG]

Davis was a "home run hitter"? He was slow, and he only broke 5 yards per carry once in his career. Davis was a stud because he was so consistant- you knew when he got the ball that he wasn't going to lose yardage. He didn't mix a couple of big runs (aka "home runs") with a bunch of short runs, he consistantly gained good chunks of yardage with each run. That sounds like a guy who hits a lot of Doubles, to me. Actually, of all the Denver RBs, Davis compares best to Mike Anderson (with Olandis Gary coming in second).

I like to say that an RB that averaged 3.4 yards per carry would be the single greatest RB in the history of the NFL... if he just got exactly 3.4 yards every time he touched the ball.

I wasn't talking about breaking off long TD runs, SSOG. I was referring to guys who were bona fide studs.....GREAT players, rather than "good" players. Davis and Portis were/are "great", in my book. Anderson, Droughns are/were "good", while the jury is still out on Griffin, Dayne, Bell, Sapp, Cobbs, et al. Hope that helps to clarify my opinion on the subject.

Gotcha. For future reference, when an RB is referred to as a "home run threat", that means they're a threat to take it the distance at any time. And Davis was certainly no "home run threat". I also think that Mike Anderson is tremendously underrated. Reuben Droughns and Clinton Portis are showing that it's not just the system. I think that Anderson could still have been a 1200-1500 yard back outside of Denver. Granted, I don't put him on the level of Davis and Portis... but I think Davis and Portis are the kind of RBs who one day wind up in the HoF. An RB can be "great" without being a "Hall of Fame Talent".

Davis/Portis = Potential HoFers

Anderson = Great RB

Droughns = Very Good RB

Gary = Average to Below Average RB

Quentin Griffin = Horrible RB.

That's my take on it, at least.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

2005: Mike Anderson started #1 and finished #1. He was honest and correct

2004: Quentin Griffin started #1 but was injured. Droughns finished #1. He was honest, but incorrect

2003: Clinton Portis started #1 and finished #1. He had no decision to make.

2002: Olandis Gary started #1 but was injured. Clinton Portis finished #1. He was honest, but incorrect

I wouldn't say he was incorrect for the 2002 season. He was dealing with a rookie in Clinton Portis who I suspect he didn't feel comfortable throwing into battle right away.Anytime I want to explain Shanahan to someone, I always bring up labor unions. Seniority matters with him. Gary and Anderson were both guys who had performed well for him in the past. They got first cracks at the starting job in 2002. As a committee, they performed decently. Then Gary tweaked his ankle and once it was clear he wasn't able to play up to the level he had sorta played up to previously, it was all Clinton Portis all the time.

It's hard to say what would've happened if Gary hadn't injured his ankle week 3 although I suspect it was only a matter of time anyway. He was always a mediocre RB to me coupled with the fact he had suffered a torn ACL followed by a broken leg.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

On a side note, Rod Smith still calls me Cecil Sapp everytime I talk to him. 

And you laugh at that? I'd punch him for disrespecting me and not even knowing my name. You don't call him Rod Stewart, do you?

I actually call him Rowdy Roddy. He knows who I am, he just likes to play around. He is rather stand off-ish to the media, so the fact that he gives me #### is pretty cool.

 

[Sopranos]

Q lost his job,was returning kicks when he got injured and was out for the season. He lost the job because he couldnt do it good enough..

 

[Chaos Commish]

Correcting my error above about staff rankings. I saw Bell at 26, Dayne at 32, and made an assumption based on a quick scan. Some staff have Dayne above Bell, as I think he should be at the moment. Like Anderson a year ago. I remember Shanny saying and doing the same with Anderson as he is with Dayne, Anderson being available in the 10th round and Bell falling early in the the 3rd. We know how that worked out. But now it's D a y n e... heh... I love Denver RBs. So... 4 have Dayne over Bell. 9 don't.

Brown has Dayne over Bell (28/33)

Shick has Dayne over Bell (28/37)

Lammey has Dayne over Bell (20/33)

Tremblay has Dayne over Bell (23/29)

Bloom has Bell over Dayne (25/32)

Smith has Bell over Dayne (15/32)

Wood has Bell over Dayne (18/38)

Hicks has Bell over Dayne (24/28)

Wimer has Bell over Dayne (28/40)

Levin has Bell over Dayne (18/31)

Pasquino has Bell over Dayne (32/41)

Baker has Bell over Dayne (28/38)

Norton has Bell over Dayne (31/37)

My problem isn't with most of them favoring Bell. I understand the many arguments in his favor. I don't agree with them, but a swing in the news cycle would have me on his bandwagon. My problem is with the huge downturn predicted for the DENVER running game. In fairly standard scoring Anderson ended up RB10 nursing injuries for half the season. Bell, in spot duty, ended up RB 21. Denver ended up 2nd in rushing yards and 3rd in rushing TDs. It looks to me like most of the Staff is projecting Denver well out of the top ten on the ground. I don't see it. The schedule is a little lighter. Top five seems conservatively realistic.